Why the theory of evolution is so important

[We Never Know]

On a time scale we humans are just mere infants. I usually pi$$ some people off when I say this..

If you think or accept or believe in the last 150-200 years we have figured out
-the universe, all of its laws, how it formed, etc
-life, how it started, evolution, etc

You are as niave as anyone. That's my opinion because in 300 more years we at this time will look like bronze age goat herders.

 

[The Anointed]

Never. No theory is ever "proven". The theory of gravity will never be proven, but that does not mean that it is wise to jump off of a cliff.

Now if you mean the legal standard of "Proven beyond a reasonable doubt" well that happened over one hundred years ago.

Cosmological theories are formulated by scientists, and theories by definition, are the unproven hypothesis, suppositions, and opinions of those scientists.

A theory will remain nothing more than a theory until it is proven to be factual beyond all reasonable doubt, which the theory of the evolution of life from a universe of mindless matter, has not, and therefore remains a theory.

You do know the difference between a theory and a proven fact don't you mate. A proven fact is not considered to be a Theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cosmological theories are formulated by scientists, and theories by definition, are the unproven hypothesis, suppositions, and opinions of those scientists.

A theory will remain nothing more than a theory until it is proven to be factual beyond all reasonable doubt, which the theory of the evolution of life from a universe of mindless matter, has not, and therefore remains a theory.

You do know the difference between a theory and a proven fact don't you mate. A proven fact is not considered to be a Theory.

You need to get rid of the word "suppositions". Once a hypothesis is tested the suppositions go away. And anyone that says "nothing more than a theory" does not understand what a theory is.

A theory explains "proven facts". The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution just as the theory of gravity explains gravity.

You are like so many creationists accusing others of your flaws.

 

[MJFlores]

Nope, still not English. Until you ask it in English:

42

If people trust and strongly agree on something they are not 100% sure - what do you call it?
[Evaded]

So I therefore conclude:

 

[Subduction Zone]

If people trust and strongly agree on something they are not 100% sure - what do you call it?
[Evaded]

So I therefore conclude:

View attachment 27973

You are wrong in your conclusion. If you could ask your question properly I would gladly answer it. But since you insist in asking a poorly formed question all that you get is a poorly formed answer:

42

 

[Subduction Zone]

Makes sense.

Can you ask a proper question? That means no unjustified assumptions "Have you quit beating your wife yet?" Try to use clear English If you can think rationally it should be no problem at all.

 

[The Anointed]

You need to get rid of the word "suppositions". Once a hypothesis is tested the suppositions go away. And anyone that says "nothing more than a theory" does not understand what a theory is.

A theory explains "proven facts". The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution just as the theory of gravity explains gravity.

You are like so many creationists accusing others of your flaws.

A theory may explain proven facts that may or may not lead to proving the theory that a universe of mindless matter has produced beings with intrinsic ends, self- replication capabilities, and “coded chemistry.” But until it can prove that there is no intelligent design behind the creation of those life forms, it will remain no more than a theory.

I myself believe that the space station and all its complex and intricate earth bound support systems evolved from the wheel, but I also believe that from the creation of the wheel, came billions of other creations that represented the height to which the mind of the creator of the wheel had evolved to at the time of each subsequent creation, and when the creator of the wheel had evolved, the technology, to manufacture the necessary material, and all the support systems needed for the creation of said space station, the creator finally said, "And now let us create the Space Station."

And the theory of Gravity, does not explain what gravity really is. We know what gravity does, but we do not know what gravity is, and so it will remain no more than a theory until such time as that can be explained.

What is gravity?

 

[Subduction Zone]

A theory may explain proven facts that may or may not lead to proving the theory that a universe of mindless matter has produced beings with intrinsic ends, self- replication capabilities, and “coded chemistry.” But until it can prove that there is no intelligent design behind the creation of those life forms, it will remain no more than a theory.

I myself believe that the space station and all its complex and intricate earth bound support systems evolved from the wheel, but I also believe that from the creation of the wheel, came billions of other creations that represented the height to which the mind of the creator of the wheel had evolved to at the time of each subsequent creation, and when the creator of the wheel had evolved, the technology, to manufacture the necessary material, and all the support systems needed for the creation of said space station, the creator finally said, "And now let us create the Space Station."

And the theory of Gravity, does not explain what gravity really is. We know what gravity does, but we do not know what gravity is, and so it will remain no more than a theory until such time as that can be explained.

What is gravity?

As usual you got quite a bit wrong and demonstrated once again that you should never say "no more than a theory" . After all most of what you believe has been shown to be wrong or is at best a Wild Donkeyed Guess. And then to top it off you used a poor source that does not even know what the theory of gravity is. But then neither do you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would like to play my victory song and do my victory lap.

But if you did that you would be lying. You could not even ask a question in English and then did not understand the answer to your question that you were given. If anything you crashed and burned in a quite colorful manner. A person that thinks rationally can ask proper questions. I even have you some pointers.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If people bank and vouch for something not 100% sure - whatchamacallit?

So, do you honestly believe there is a coherent answer that anyone can give to this question? If you do, then this is yet another belief that you hold that I feel is mighty delusional.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Primordial soup was the tasty appetizer.

View attachment 27971

One question pop up in my head.
Where did this primordial soup located and how big was it?
Is it just one soup or many soup?
You see there are different kinds of soup.

Evolution doesn't go there. Again, maybe stop being ignorant.

However, I would say that there is a lot more that can be examined and observed about "primordial soups" than can ever be observed of God, or any part of any story in The Bible.

 

[Polymath257]

Cosmological theories are formulated by scientists, and theories by definition, are the unproven hypothesis, suppositions, and opinions of those scientists.

A theory will remain nothing more than a theory until it is proven to be factual beyond all reasonable doubt, which the theory of the evolution of life from a universe of mindless matter, has not, and therefore remains a theory.

You do know the difference between a theory and a proven fact don't you mate. A proven fact is not considered to be a Theory.

Well, the key word here is 'reasonable doubt'. No theory in science is *ever* proven beyond *all* doubt. Such proof is limited to mathematics (and not even there, truthfully).

But science can and does prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' on a great many things. And that includes cosmology and evolution. Both of these have such a mass of evidence for the current viewpoints that, while they may be wrong in detail, they are correct in overall view.

Now, there are plenty of 'unreasonable doubters' out there. Usually they simply fail to understand what the science says and what the evidence is. Other times they have preconceived ideas about how things 'must be' that contradict the facts. Among those in the 'unreasonable doubters' category are flat-earthers, creationists, those who believe in homeopathy or pyramic power, etc.

Finally, in science, the term 'Theory' is, today, the highest level of confidence we give in an overarching set of ideas that have been extensively tested in a variety of ways and has passed every test. This is a *very* high bar and one that no religious ideas come close to achieving.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now my question - WHO saw a Neanderthal change into a Homo sapien?

Neanderthal didn't evolve into homo sapiens.
There was some cross breeding (many humans have a % of neanderthal DNA), but homo sapiens didn't evolve from neanderthal.

At best, neanderthal were our cousins (on a species level).

As for your silly question.... Ignoring the error of your neanderthal comment... no, nobody has ever observed a process that takes millions of years to unfold.

Who has ever seen Pluto complete an orbit?
Nobody, that's who. You know why? First, because it takes multiple lifetimes. Second, because we haven't even known long enough about Pluto for it to complete an orbit since it's discovery.
Yet, we know exactly how long it takes to complete an orbit.

So, who has seen medieval english develop into modern english?
Or Latin into spanish, french, portugese, italian,..?

Who witness the transformation or evolution?

Nobody.
But we can see confirmation of common ancestry in our collective DNA.

None? Then the evidence are just guesses and mere imaginations.

You don't seem to understand what evidence is. Evidence is about much more then mere "eyewitness testimony".

In fact, and quite ironically, "eyewitness testimony" is the least credible type of evidence you could possibly come up with.

Countless murder convicts were falsely put in prison based on "eyewitness testimony".
They later were set free when actual evidence came in, like DNA evidence.

A single piece of objective evidence, will instantly overrule 100 opinions or "testimonies" or "anecdotes".

In case of evolution, common ancestry of species in particular, that objective (verifiable, testable, demonstrable) evidence, is provided by the genetic record primarily.

But off course also the fossil record, comparative anatomy, biogeography, etc etc...



Maybe you should try to inform yourself on the unified field theory of biology and actually try to understand it, before insisting on arguing against it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is still language

And humans are still primates and mammals and vertebrates.

not an evolution
Adaptation is not evolution

Except that it is. That's all it is.
And the accumulation of changes (or "adaptions") over generations, leading to evermore changes as time goes by.

Not used when generations rather speak the national language than the provincial dialect.

Dialects are variations.
When isolated long enough, they become their own language (gradually).

This is how "dialects" of latin over time, changed into french, italian, portugese, spanish.
All languages where a speaker of one might understand a few things left and right from the others, but generally not nearly enough to have a conversation.

1 language (latin) thus evolved into 4 distinct sub-languages (french, italian, portuguese, spanish => "roman" languages).

Just like how a single primate species evolved into subspecies of primates (known today as chimps, humans, oerang oetangs, gorilla's, bonobo's).

Then observing becomes impossible

There's other ways besides "observing" things to find out that they happened.
In case of evolution, it makes scientific predictions that you can test in the present.

Things that if found, they confirm common ancestry and if not they falsify common ancestry.

Millions upon millions of predictions concerning genetic markers, anatomy, geographic location etc.

Darwin himself did not have that infinite number of years to
accomplish, prove and determine with certainty his science
I think it is Darwin's guesses
And people are banking that he is right
and that is putting a blind faith on a man like Charles Darwin,
whom people haven't met or shook hands with.

No.

Science doesn't care about opinions or testimony or claims.
It cares about evidence.
And 200 years after Darwin, evidence has shown that his core ideas (descent with modification/inheritance of traits + natural selection) were smack down correct.

They have been confirmed correct by evidence.
They aren't just "believed" to be correct.

Science doesn't deal in beliefs. Science deals in falsifiability, evidence and verifiability.

And evoluion most certainly has been well established through evidence and verified to the point that it is nothing short of perverse to ignore it.

So we are indeed basically the same.
I believe in the teachings of a man named Jesus Christ
whom I haven't met or shook hands with
I just read his teachings, believed in it and have placed my faith on these teachings.

People have Darwin
I have Jesus
We believe and have faith on them.

No.

You have Jesus and bronze age creation myths.
We have evidence and science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

BUMP.... BUMP... BUMP....3rd Request!!!

Dear Subduction Zone,

Why don't you just TRY to REFUTE what I have brought forth to you directly, instead of whining about it all day long. Is it because you have no answer or rebuttal to come back to me... contrary to what I have posted??? Also, please explain to us the Magical Evolution Process that you are so eagerly defending and ready to die for. Thanks

As I have said before, Ape/monkey societies are Not Human Civilizations. Some Evols would have us believe that we ARE Apes. We are the descendants of Adam and the sons of God.

The sons of God (Prehistoric Man) never wrote a book, nor built a city. Humans, Adam, was made on the 3rd Day and the sons of God were created from the water on the 5th Day. Pre-Noah Humans were from Adam, and the sons of God are referred to by Evols, as Caveman.

The reason Humans have the DNA and ERVs of the common ancestor of Apes is because today's Humans ARE the children of Noah's descendants and the prehistoric people who were already here and had been for Millions of years BEFORE Noah arrived. That is WHY we have the Human intelligence which ONLY Adam and God had, Gen 3:22 but we also contain the DNA and ERVs of the common ancestor of Apes within our Human bloodstreams. This does NOT mean that we evolved from them but that our Human blood was contaminated by them. It cost Humans 90% of our lifetimes because of this.

The problem with the False ToE is that it does NOT know that Humans came to this Earth in an Ark. It's because they have rejected God's Truth and now they are stuck with their incomplete view, because they have been force teaching it to our children for more than 50 years. It's against the Constitution to teach one's UnSupported "beliefs" to our children in the Public Schools. God

Don't look for Science to recognize this event since it absolutely DESTROYS the idea that we magically evolved from Apes, because there is NO evidence of How and When prehistoric people became Human. In order to believe such foolishness, you MUST accept the False idea that Humans Magically changed from animal to Human intelligence.

That is the FALSE Religion (belief) that is being forced upon our children in the Public Schools. With NO evidence, it's nothing more than a False Religion and totally UnConstitutional.

Don't believe me? Then produce evidence of How and When prehistoric people changed from animal to Human intelligence.

There is NONE. I will wait for you to post just ONE piece of evidence which shows this, but I won't hold my breath.

So Noah's Ark was a spaceship?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now I am beginning to wonder if Humans were mermaids.
It would be logical that the upper torso would be human while waiting for the lower torso to change.
It won't be like Ariel or Aquaman but rather it would be half ape and half fish.

Now that is evolution.

Such a fossil, if genuine, would disprove evolution.

Isn't it ironic, that the evidence that creationists demand in support of evolution, would in reality be the type of thing that would actually falsify evolution instead?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Cosmological theories are formulated by scientists, and theories by definition, are the unproven hypothesis, suppositions, and opinions of those scientists.

Ow dear.......

A scientific theory is basically a graduated hypothesis.
In science in terms of explanatory models, a theory is the highest status your idea can get.

"really good theories" are still theories.
They don't turn into facts.

A theory will remain nothing more than a theory until it is proven to be factual beyond all reasonable doubt,

No.
Learn the jargon you are so hellbend on arguing against please....

Fact: a piece of data, an observation, a measurement
Law: a generalisation / abstraction of a set of facts withing a specific scope
Hypothesis: a proposed explanation for a well defined set of facts and/or laws
Theory: an hypothesis that is accepted as being the best available explanatory model for the set of facts / laws. A hypothesis that is confirmed through experiments / evidence.

Of these 4, only hypothesis can become theory.
None of the others can become one of the others.

Theories don't become facts or laws.
Theories EXPLAIN facts and laws.

You do know the difference between a theory and a proven fact don't you mate. A proven fact is not considered to be a Theory.

You might want to read this webpage. Don't worry, it's only 9 paragraphes of 1 to 5 sentences each. It shouldn't take you longer then 2 minutes and it will clear all this up for you rather quickly:

Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

Now that you have been informed of this, you can stop making this silly argument saying "it's just a theory".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If people trust and strongly agree on something they are not 100% sure - what do you call it?
[Evaded]

So I therefore conclude:

View attachment 27973

Right, right....

Because the only alternative to 100% certainty, is being 100% clueless

 

[shunyadragon]

Now I am beginning to wonder if Humans were mermaids.
It would be logical that the upper torso would be human while waiting for the lower torso to change.
It won't be like Ariel or Aquaman but rather it would be half ape and half fish.

Now that is evolution.

There is no objective verifiable evidence that mermaids exist except in phoney carny side shows which you seem to endorse blindly and enthusiastically..

 

[MJFlores]

Evolution doesn't go there. Again, maybe stop being ignorant.

However, I would say that there is a lot more that can be examined and observed about "primordial soups" than can ever be observed of God, or any part of any story in The Bible.

So where is the soup?
I want to observe the soup.

Since we cannot observe God or any part of any story in the Bible.
How about observing the SOUP?
But where is that again?